Ron Who?

[Bradylama]

I'm sure some of you watched the Republican Debates last night, and while I came into the experience already a Ron Paul supporter it was odd how very little he was mentioned by pundits.

On MSNBC's poll, before the debate Paul scored a 9% positive rating. Now after the debate he's received a 43% positive rating. The highest candidate on the list.

Alex Johnson has also submitted the article Republicans Walk Tightrope Over The War, claiming that there were no real distinguishing voices on Iraq.

Republican presidential candidates gave a qualified endorsement Thursday night to President Bush’s strategy in the war in Iraq, criticizing the administration for mismanaging the war but insisting that U.S. troops should not be withdrawn.

Nevermind that Paul came out with a very strong anti-war stance, stating that the war was a mistake to begin with (and having voted against it he's not just flappin), a fact mentioned in passing by Keith Olbermann.

Giuliani gets press for supporting stem cell research but Paul gets no coverage for being the only anti-war Republican candidate? Even Hillary can't top Paul with the anti-war crowd, considering her own Hawkish nature from the Clinton Whitehouse and her voting to support the war.

Yet nowhere do I see any mention of Ron Paul. Statements being made in the media follow the lines that nobody distinguished themselves, and that Mitt Romney "won" a "debate" where the candidates were asked what they'd think of another Clinton Whitehouse.

Even on Politico's own forums the commentary on all the articles is rife with support for Ron Paul.

So what's the deal? Is the media intentionally marginalising Ron Paul? He's one of the few candidates at the event that wasn't blowing smoke up the ass of the Reagan legacy.

Also here's an excerpt of his interview on the Politico forums.

 

[Tannhauser]

I think stem cell research is crucial and is very, very important. Medically, it has a great future. The answers aren't in yet, completely. Politicians and bureaucrats and the FDA don't know either. I don't think that's where it should be determined. I think it should be determined in the marketplace. In Washington, we've only had two choices. Either prohibit it or finance it. My position is we shouldn't do either. ... It should be up to the states to devise the rules and laws of what you can or can't do. ...

I am strongly pro-life, and the worst thing I can think of is to manufacture babies to be used for research. But as an obstetrician, I have on quite a few cases had to do surgery on a woman who had a pregnancy in the fallopian tube. The fetus is small and alive, but if you don't operate on them, the fetus dies and the patient dies. ... I don't see any reason why you can't use that fetal tissue for research.

A sensible opinion, mixing reality and personal opinion, on such a hot potato of a topic? Not veiled in political double-speak?

I'm honestly amazed and impressed, though I don't think he has a snowballs chance in hell.

 

[Bradylama]

Nothing he said came off as bullshit, which is why I think it's odd that he's gotten zero press coverage, even if he doesn't have a chance of getting elected. I guess nobody has a chance of getting elected, though, since the media has already decided that our choices are between McCain, Giuliani, and Romney.

 

[Tannhauser]

Much less that, he will have to win over the central Republican power structure. They will mobilize the voters they can easily influence to their favorite, which I strongly doubt will be Ron Paul.

I suppose it is a bit curious that the isn't getting coverage, I'm a bit out of the loop at this early point so I'm a bad judge. The media might simply be dismissing him as inconsequential, and considering any coverage to him is a waste of space. The media can be a fickle mistress, after all.

Looking at the Washington Post coverage, every other candidate besides McCain, Giuliani, and Romney is basically ignored. I also doubt Ron Paul has the campaign strength to break the media out of it's current tailspin. In which they cover McCain, Giuliani, and Romney, so the public become more interested in those three, which reinforces the media's selective coverage, and so on.

 

[Bradylama]

Yet they still took the time to interview Brownback with his wife looking at him and around the hangar like a house dog, and a few of the other "no-runs" post-debate.

Some of the more crazies are saying it's because Paul isn't a corporate shill that they aren't giving him airtime, but I wonder.

He's not even invited to Fox News's debate, as I understand it.

This might explain why:

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May03/0,4670,RepublicansDebate,00.html
There was no dissent about the importance of the U.S. military mission in Iraq.

Not a single mention of Paul, either.

 

[radnan]

i'm kind of hoping for Giuliani to get on through. i find him more appealing then most candidates and much more in tune with human reality not just republican.

i dont think all republican candidates support the war - i think its just something they are expected to say and they say for connecting with the base - as for Ron Paul - i think it was brave of him but also something of a stunt to get attention as he would have been clearly ignored otherwise ...

other notes on the american campaign:
on the democratic side
i find Hillary just awfull - but wouldnt be totall opposed to her in the white house since i know she's somewhat tied to Bill..
others i would have liked to get more attention but probably wont would be
Kucinich
and
Richardson
both looking like they have the proper experience and the right values...

Anyhow thats just a curious view from across the pond

 

[Bradylama]

Also, it looks like I was wrong about the Fox debate, as apparently I had read some old news.

I know I seem like a bit of a fanboy here, but really it's hard not to love him.

 

[nospaces]

just need to throw some money at him

 

[Goweigus]

This is an email i got from Aaron Russo a couple days ago, this guy made the movie America: Freedom to Fascism, and the t.v. show Trading Places.

Fox-TV is denying Ron Paul to be in the South Carolina Presidential
Debate----says he is not a recognized, major candidate !!!!!

EVERYONE !!!! call SC GOP Office 803 - 988 - 8440

ask to speak to ROB GODFREY and ALSO ask to speak with

HOGAN GRIDLEY ---SC GOP Chief Executive Officer.

The Republican GOP can put a stop to this !!!!

WE NEED TO HAVE RON PAUL IN THE SC MAY 15th DEBATE !!!!

Ron Paul has paid his the $25,000 registration fee to be on SC Ballot --- He
deserves to be in the May 15th debate --- He's a Republican Candidate for
President !!!! --- he deserves to be heard !!!! ----

The American people deserve to have the right to hear him in the debate !!!

Are they --- The Republican Party in SC going to allow "Fox-TV" to choose who
the American public will hear on May 15th debates?

<THEN> email Fox news and ask them to include Ron Paul, the only
candidate that is FAIR AND BALLANCED.

Flood their computers with messages... all of them.. there is power in the
people and we have to let them know we want our candidate to have as much
coverage as the rest of them get.

Come on gang this needs to be done.. cross post this list to all your groups and
let’s make one big bunch of messages....

WE WERE SUCCESSFUL BEFORE IN GETTING RON PAUL ON FOX WE CAN DO IT AGAIN!

Just copy, paste and send this message to all below:

"As a loyal Fox viewer I ask that you include Ron Paul in the South Carolina
Debate. I feel Dr. Ron Paul embodies the true ideals our nation stands for, and
his views and plans need to be heard. Please remain the Fair and Ballanced
network by including Dr. Ron Paul, otherwise I will find my news elsewhere."

Thank you,
[INSERT YOUR NAME HERE]

TO CALL FOX NEWS CHANNEL:
1-888-369-4762
TO E-MAIL COMMENTS:

 

[Bradylama]

Yep. I know that the SC Republican Party recently released a list with Paul's name on it, so apparently he's gonna be there or be square.

Interestingly enough they tried the same thing with Gravel for the next Democratic debate, but it also fell through because of the grassroots incentives.

 

[Quantos Leap]

This guy is the real deal, straightforward without all the hidden charges that come with politics. It's obvious he's not a pawn of special interests, and truly wants what is best for America.*

For that alone I'm considering giving him my vote if nominated.

*So what is best for America? His reverent belief in the free market is a bit uneasing. He's staunchly against the welfare state and would seemingly like to privatize everything but defense and the justice system. Thus, I'd really like to know what he proposes as solutions to social problems that the USA experiences in greater intensity than nations with more robust welfare.

He's "for personal responsibility and no entitlements" but hypothetically how is it the 3 year-old's responsibility his parents are strungout, uneducated criminals in poverty? I'd say that wouldn't be a case of what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. That nastiness is going to be passed onto him. Extrapolate that to an entire underclass, and you have serious social problems. This is all basic paraphrasing of the fundamentals of welfare but I just don't see how conservatives can call themselves ethical when allowing such to happen in a naturally unfair system that they lobby for.

 

[Goweigus]

hes probably talking more about how people take advantage of welfare like some immigrants who sneak over just so their kids can get it.

im sure hes got it all planned out well, i doubt he'd be That good in some areas and totally screwed in others

 

[Sander]

hes probably talking more about how people take advantage of welfare like some immigrants who sneak over just so their kids can get it.

im sure hes got it all planned out well, i doubt he'd be That good in some areas and totally screwed in others

...
Your argument is 'Oh, he'll have that all figured out'?
What the fuck?

 

[Bradylama]

All welfare states have an underclass, don't kid yourself. The problem with poverty in the United States is that we've created a beurocratic and authoritarian system which denies them the ability to integrate with the broader economy. Public housing didn't help poor people put a roof over their heads, it just put them all in one place where they could be continuously victimized by the dreck of society.

 

[Goweigus]

I'm just kinda saying that if hes got the guts to come out and actually say this stuff, I'm sure fewer of his ideas are gonna be as retarded as canidates that don't stand out.

 

[Sander]

I'm just kinda saying that if hes got the guts to come out and actually say this stuff, I'm sure fewer of his ideas are gonna be as retarded as canidates that don't stand out.

Are you serious? That's some of the most retarded 'logic' I've ever seen. 'He stands out so he's got his stuff together'? What the fuck?

 

[PhredBean]

Goweigus, you're cheering for the right guy for all the wrong reasons, which in my opinion is still a vote poorly cast.

Honestly, do your research, apply actual logic, then come back and tell me why you think Ron Paul is the right or wrong guy for the presidency.



Me personally, I don't agree with him on everything but it's fairly close. I've been reading his weekly newsletter for almost a year now, even though he isn't my state's congressman. He has a good head for the issues, reads every letter of every peice of legislation that comes before him (you'd be suprised how few senators and legislators do, most just hear the debate and read a summary of the main highlights), stands by his decisions, and votes morally while always keeping in mind what is constitutional and just.

It would be wonderful to have an actual conservative running for office. A person who believes in the rights of states and localities and limiting federal powers. The republican party is no longer a truely conservative party, they consistantly vote for more and more federal legislation. I'm tired of both republicans and democrats trampling the constitution and placing their nose everywhere it doesn't belong, both within the states and outside it.

 

[Goweigus]

Well I mean hes not like a lot of the other candidates and says shit like "blah blah blah, against the War" "blah blah blah fighting terrorism" "ill be quiet and say basically the same thing as everyone around me".

He gets right out there and tells the IRS, the Federal Reserve, the National ID card, the Federal Income Tax, and stupid Welfare to all go to hell. I like that, and all those but welfare are things I've actually been fighting against for a little while now and can understand where hes coming from on those issues. I haven't seen him present anything that actually seems against the constitution or values of freedom and liberty. Now a guy that would actually have the balls to come out and say that surely isn't going to turn on the American people, when hes attacking the very things that have been used to control Americans unjustly. Unlike Bush who certainly seemed nice enough at first (and used the Iraq war to distract people from all the unjust and unconstitutional laws hes instituted since hes come to office) Ron comes out at shows how hes on our side. And even if a few faults of his can be found its surely worth what he promises to save us from, as compared to the shit we can get from regular candidates who don't talk much about what they will really do. ugh

The fact that the media seemed to surprise him may or may not have been some evidence of how evils in the country don't want him to have a chance, I don't know. I just know hes wiling to attack the very things that are indirectly squeezing the life out of this country and sending it to its downfall.

 

[Quantos Leap]

All welfare states have an underclass, don't kid yourself.

Of course, but what are you saying? Should we abandon the system completely because it doesn't fix every single case of it? I just want to know what Ron Paul offers as an alternative. The fact is, not everybody can work, rule of capitalism and all that, so what happens to them? That's an example of pure impossibility, but moreover, is humanitarianism. I care for trying to fix the absolute and torturous misfortune some experience that isn't necessarily caused by one's self but circumstance.

Where does Paul stand on that? "personal responsibility and no entitlements" is all I've got from him.

The problem with poverty in the United States is that we've created a beurocratic and authoritarian system which denies them the ability to integrate with the broader economy. Public housing didn't help poor people put a roof over their heads, it just put them all in one place where they could be continuously victimized by the dreck of society.

Good example of misdirection, but that's overly simplistic on the issue of poverty in general. One bad example doesn't mean it doesn't work elsewhere, and couldn't work here if things were done differently.

 

[Bradylama]

Should we abandon the system completely because it doesn't fix every single case of it?

I'm saying that we should abandon the system because it discourages the most unskilled from being productive, and acts as a net drain on the economy. If there was no minimum wage they never would have had to bring in Mexicans to rebuild New Orleans. The gap between the poor and the middle class isn't jumpable, and it's the government nanny state which keeps it that way.

People caught up in the poor house due to "circumstance" rarely stay there, because they're already naturally productive, and with the help of charities and shelters they're capable of getting back on their feet later down the road. The chronically unemployed are either bums, schizophrenics, or people so atrociously low-skilled that they can't even be hired to dig ditches cost-effectively. Corralling the poorest, most uneducated people into ghettoes and keeping them there isn't how you eliminate poverty, and neither is welfare. These people need to be able to work if they want to get anywhere, and so long as statists and Washington intelligentsia think that people are too stupid to take care of themselves we'll continue to be dehumanized and herded like sheep into what we laughably call a "social security" system.

One bad example doesn't mean it doesn't work elsewhere, and couldn't work here if things were done differently.

Alright, then. The onus is on you now. What can the government do differently to end poverty? New-Deal/Nazi-style worker programs don't count.

Well I mean hes not like a lot of the other candidates and says shit like "blah blah blah, against the War" "blah blah blah fighting terrorism" "ill be quiet and say basically the same thing as everyone around me".

Again with the faulty logic. The reason Paul should be trustworthy on his positions is that he's held the same positions for practically his entire 30 year career in politics.